DISCLAIMER:
This patchset is not an official linux-kernel-branch. Anyone using it does so at their own risk. Neither the patchset-maintainers (ie anyone from the NITRO-DEV team which is currently comprised of Darckness, Tiger683, and seppe) nor any of the authors of the patches included herein can be held responsible for any sort of damage caused by this software.

EDIT: Whoops...we screwed up. Ignore all references to npl. Next time I'll consult my attorney before attempting any sort of legal related document. Sticking to kernel-patching from now on...

New:The experimental version has landed. The broken-out isn't up yet because I don't have all the patches yet, but give it some time and I'll have a link up. Changelog for this version, hereafter known as the rt (realtime) version, can be found here. Just set USE="want-realtime" to enable it. It has all the stuff you would expect in a nitro, but it's even FASTER!
The only issue I've run into so far is that the framebuffer seems to be b0rked somehow. Tiger683 assures me that his works, so maybe it's just a hardware-related problem. Either way, it hardlocks for me on boot when I have the framebuffer enabled. If the same happens to you, disable it. The main differences between the rt version and the "stable" version is that rt contains TONS of experimental patches. Things that people request to be put into nitro will most likely go into the rt branch first for testing, and then get moved down to stable as they are marked safe (probably take a version or two). The focus of the rt branch is basically to replace the old experimental branch which just added the mm tree into nitro. This adds patches from nearly everywhere, but best of all it includes the realtime cpu scheduling patches which are designed to make your system even more responsive.

Nvidia drivers DO work with this kernel. I'm using the nvidia agpgart right now and it seems to work alright, so use whatever you feel like using in that department.

Software suspend with this version is 50/50. It will either work because of some last-minute hackery that I attempted, or it won't. The devs on this project decided that they were too good to follow the standard rules for functions, and I had to clean up a bit. Hopefully it worked.

Reiser4 people: The slowdown/bugs from previous versions should be fixed.

Insane stack users: Here is basically how it works (unless I'm completely mistaken). The smaller the stack size, the less memory stuff will use. The larger the stack size, the more memory it will use AND the faster stuff will work (to an extent I suppose). I'm not sure how noticible it would be and I'm sticking to 4k stacks myself. No guarantees that everything will work with stack sizes other than 4k and 8k!

SEMI-NEW:
This kernel bears the "Darckness Gaming Seal Of Approval". This means that it's a kernel that I can play World of Warcraft and other intense games without issues on. Of course I test it for other stuff as well, but I remember always being frustrated when I couldn't find a good fps-guaranteed kernel. From now on, I will put the seal of approval on any nitros that I deem worthy of my use in various gaming worlds. For those of you wondering why I think I'm qualified to have my own Seal Of Approval, check out my awesome World Of Warcraft Howto.

Also be sure to check out my ideas on genkernel. Anyone who can contribute to realizing some of the ideas in that thread would be most appreciated.

Extra:
As for the NDF (nitro-dev files), I'll be updating them pretty much the instant that 2.6.11 comes out. Then you'll see why development has been a tad slow lately, and why I couldn't update them sooner._________________There is no substitute for experience.
Imperfection indicates a lack of effort.

Last edited by discomfitor on Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:31 pm; edited 11 times in total

I've been using Reiser4 since like the day after Xmas. Not a single problem here. Although reports by other users have pointed to information showing that you should NOT use Reiser4 with the Staircase Scheduler because it decreases the filesystem's performance.

I'm currently experimenting and testing that information out by using Love sources with Nicksched / Genetic Anticipatory. So far it actually DOES seem faster in hard drive access situations.

-Feld_________________< bmg505> I think the first line in reiserfsck is

This was not my point.
I have mailed with nick and he will send me new nicksched asap,

my question was about _this_ release, because we used a very recent r4 version (not the mm one..its old)

PS: the most experimental version with REALTIME-PREEMPT will be out sometime today,
i allready managed to workout the build issues with reiser4 and most probably itll also have nvidia and ati driver issues fixed.

where did this "new" reiser4 code come from, and does it contain any new features, I WANT THE REPACKER WORKING so bad!!! lol_________________Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger.

resierfs4 works good for me in this one but still i have to patch to get my networkcard to work the sk98lin in the kernel dosent work for me.. will try it for awhile... thanx what is that TUX that are in network section??_________________Gentoo 2005.0
ASUS P5AD2 Deluxe MB
Intel P4 3.2GHz
PCI-E Nvidia Geforce PCX 5750
--------------------

I'm pretty sure you're violating the GPL by having that advertisement addition. The GPL distinctly disallows any restrictions other than those explicitly given within the terms and conditions that the GPL specifies.

The GPL wrote:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

I'm pretty sure you're violating the GPL by having that advertisement addition. The GPL distinctly disallows any restrictions other than those explicitly given within the terms and conditions that the GPL specifies.

The GPL wrote:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

[/off-topic]

codergeek42 - you are 100% right!! every user that is using nitro-sources released on this licence is using ILLEGAL SOFTWARE.

Nitro-devs: I'll put some nitro patches into vivid - to show you how deeply I have this bullshit. If you don't know anything about GPL / GPLv2 - you shouldn't say anything idiotic like this....

NPL = ROTFL!

PS. Yes - I'm shoked, I'm pissed and so on.... if Nitro-devs would developed EVERY PATCH THEY USE, than maybe I would say - 'they want to be known, etc., they're right'. But they're using patches of another people!! And they want to keep it as they SOFTWARE?? ROTFL! This is nothing more, than just a 'saying hi' to flames on forum. Nitro-devs will be looking into another patchsets for a line of code that they have changed...

If a product for the community that is supposed to be GPL'd that isnt even your own original work gets put under a bogus license like that then I want nothing to do with it.

Come on guys... all you had to do was say "if you use Nitro patches and use them elsewhere please let them know where you found them -- from Nitro Sources" -- but even that is trivial considering the fact that you could always claim you got the patches from the original author / some mailing list just like you guys probably did.

-Feld_________________< bmg505> I think the first line in reiserfsck is

NOTE: The npl has been discontinued due to the fact that I didn't read through it carefully enough. The general idea was that I find it irritating when other patchsets BLATANTLY rip off the work that nitro does without giving any credit whatsoever. I suppose from now on I'll just go point it out to them instead of trying to limit it.

SUMMARY: Move along people, there's nothing to see here.

codergeek42: Thanks for not being overly offensive about it. I appreciate your wisdom as always.

_troll_: You are aptly named. Congratulations, for I am almost inspired enough by your insanity to respond to your trolling. Luckily I am not that stupid.

feld: It IS our original work. I have yet to see another patchset that incorporates nearly as much time and energy into creating new material for the community. Sure, maybe we don't write all the patches ourselves, but the amount of time that Tiger683 spent on the realtime version is proof that quite a bit of work goes into this. I would estimate that he spent approximately one entire week (168 hours) working on it. Is it so wrong to want to be given credit for that kind of effort?_________________There is no substitute for experience.
Imperfection indicates a lack of effort.

Last edited by discomfitor on Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:58 pm; edited 3 times in total

Now, the idea is avoid some misunderstandings when people see their patches, with modifications and fixes they
did, or even, like some upcoming nitro ones, where much of our custm work was put into, just getting used by any other guys without mentioning shit about it...

For archival purposes, I have salvaged a copy from an open tab I accidently laying around (lucky).

Quote:

NPL V0.6.1:
The NPL is based on the GPL v2 and later, ie the complete GPL is being accepted by accepting the NPL. The addition to this is, that anyone using parts of this patchset (including, but not limited to, documentation and patches) in their work must include a note about where they come from in a place visible for ALL users of such software before they use it. The compliance of nitro-sources and all branches of nitro-sources with this licence is implied by the NPL itself. The downloading of any materials related to nitro-sources a direct acceptance of the license.

BTW, for anyone who misses the irony, this is exactly the problem with the original BSD license. Also, they really have no right to do any of this, because any patch to the kernel is obviously a deriative work, and as such is subject to the GPL, since as codergeek kindly pointed out, you can't put any more rules over the GPL.

Also, taking code from one patchset and including it in another is perfectly fine and actually a good idea, since if it was a good idea for your patchset it probably is a good idea for another, where the whole community benefit from it as well. Where did all this competition between kernel patches come from!?

Hello, I am maintainer and co-founder of no-sources. Before this I was one of the contributers to love-sources. I'd like to bring up a few points darckness, other nitro-devs, and users of nitro sources.

Some of you may know that a few releases ago I decided not to include nicksched in my broken-out because people were taking patches that we specifically worked on and took many hours to hack. I got alot of feedback from this choice of mine, saying that this was against open-source ideals, and yeah, I understood. Next release I included it, and made a few notes as to how much time we put into each patch. I have always tried to include the person's name who wrote each patch.

Now, what you nitro devs are doing is PURELY wrong. First of all, to impose a restriction on the GPL is illegal, and i'll elaborate more on this later on in my post. Secondly, there have been patches you have taken directly out of love-sources, and other patchsets, and you have given NO credit. (I can think of your CFLAGS hack you used to include which came straight outta love and was written by OneOfOne, i can think of the make-menuconfig-name patch that you took most likely from love, written by DaMouse, and gave no credit to.) Oh yeah, can't forget to mention fbsplash and vesa-tng which are created by spock, yet i see no credit given there.

Nah, you guys are just attention whores. You want your names on everything. Well guess what, you don't do that by stomping out the names of the real contributors to this patchset, taking their work, then DEMANDING your name be upon it.

Now, I would have given you credit long ago, but if i ever need to pry a patch outta your broken-out directories, I will. And better yet, I'll do it without your credit, because you don't deserve it.

And to close off, I'd just like to mention, your "NPL" is completley invalid. And here is why, section 6 of the GPL:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

Darckness, this is not the concept of open-source. That is all, read this and understand. Nitro users, think twice about what the maintainers of your patchset are doing.

Actually, you cannot legally remove any credits information from the sources. For example, it would heva been quite simple for you to add your own name as a copyright holder of the modifications you made to the patches to make them work. If you did this and put your name as that copyright holder (in the sources themselves or in a CREDITS file or something similar), then it is explictly _against_ the GPL (under which Linux is released) to remove that copyright information.

NOTE: The npl has been discontinued due to the fact that I didn't read through it carefully enough. The general idea was that I find it irritating when other patchsets BLATANTLY rip off the work that nitro does without giving any credit whatsoever. I suppose from now on I'll just go point it out to them instead of trying to limit it.

joecool: Perhaps if you had read BOTH the npl AND the gpl, you wouldn't be acting so retardedly. The first item in the T&C for copying, distribution, and modification in the gpl states:

Quote:

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

Sound familiar? It says that you must provide reference to the original creator. That's all the npl said. So really, the npl was just reiterating the gpl.

As for us not giving credit, I honestly had no idea who wrote the menuconfig/cflags patches. Now that I know, I can cite them appropriately.

And next time your sources rip off our documentation, I will be certain to post directly into your threads informing you so as opposed to letting it slide and attempting to settle it without directly calling attention to your project._________________There is no substitute for experience.
Imperfection indicates a lack of effort.

To bad it seems this kernel hardlocks et and i cant kill it and it takes 100% cpu have tried evryhting but cant kill the damm thing will try to remeerge it to see if it sorts the problem out.... _________________Gentoo 2005.0
ASUS P5AD2 Deluxe MB
Intel P4 3.2GHz
PCI-E Nvidia Geforce PCX 5750
--------------------